Could be the worst ever

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

That’s not a collar...... this is a collar......
F90E1AE9-39EF-4104-B5D8-0C82DF246968.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
I am using the iShoot. The collar did not improve the rotation on my copy of the lens. Perhaps it is just a design anomaly of the lens design - a lopsided lens exterior at the collar attachment point??
I have never met a lens with an external collar where the rotation is smooth enough for a gimbal. I've owned Tamrons, Nikon 300 f4 AFS, 80-400s both, 200-500, Canon 100-400IS, Canon 400 f5.6, and on.. while some collars were slightly better refined than others and all were suitable for "locked-down" photography, loosening the collar never produced the fluid rotation that a non-removable collar could.
While I applaud the manufacturers for producing lenses that can reduce weight, I think that any lens that goes to 500mm and beyond should have an integrated collar...
Bottom line for me, the 180-600 will not be used with my gimbal.
cheers,
bruce
 
I just now loosened the clamp a tad and rotated the 180-600 back and forth, seems fine to me. Took a couple steps to the 600 PF and did it again, and yes, it is a slight easier to rack the set but not much, my opinion. Both are on the Wimberley Gimbal II heads. I'm content. Other than the missing gimble clamp foot. First time I have tried it, I very seldom rotate the cameras to vertical.
 
I just now loosened the clamp a tad and rotated the 180-600 back and forth, seems fine to me. Took a couple steps to the 600 PF and did it again, and yes, it is a slight easier to rack the set but not much, my opinion. Both are on the Wimberley Gimbal II heads. I'm content. Other than the missing gimble clamp foot. First time I have tried it, I very seldom rotate the cameras to vertical.
To be clear, I'm fine with the 180-600 collar, as use has reduced the rough friction... it's just not well suited to a gimbal like the 800PF or 400mm lenses.
bruce
 
I have never met a lens with an external collar where the rotation is smooth enough for a gimbal. I've owned Tamrons, Nikon 300 f4 AFS, 80-400s both, 200-500, Canon 100-400IS, Canon 400 f5.6, and on.. while some collars were slightly better refined than others and all were suitable for "locked-down" photography, loosening the collar never produced the fluid rotation that a non-removable collar could.
While I applaud the manufacturers for producing lenses that can reduce weight, I think that any lens that goes to 500mm and beyond should have an integrated collar...
Bottom line for me, the 180-600 will not be used with my gimbal.
cheers,
bruce
the rotation of the z70-200 is really smooth. So was the rotation on the F 200-500 ... so my expectations are high. I use the lens on a monopod, so that when I swing the thing left/right then the camera must rotate to keep the image horizontal, This is not like with a landscape where the camera might be rotated 90º.
 
So far I have only used the 180-600 handheld. I find the collar friction erratic and annoying. I did replace the coolar with the iShoot to have an ARCA base. I like a collar on when I shoot from the car on a beanbag to provide a little anti-roll stability. My guess is the lens section for the collar mount is not round. Perhaps more use on my part will grind off the irregularity and provide smoother operation. All in all - a great lens for its capability and cost with a poorly designed collar - a minor gripe inthe scheme of things.
 
Back
Top